Consumer Products

In Wertymer v. Walmart, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1802402 (7th Cir. July 1, 2025), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss a consumer class action which was based on speculative and contradictory assertions that a product marketed as “raw honey” was not actually raw.Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit Based on “Raw Honey” Labeling

This week, the Ninth Circuit held that state law mislabeling claims were not preempted at the pleading stage simply because the plaintiff failed to allege use of an FDA-approved sampling process when testing the product’s nutritional content.  Scheibe v. ProSupps USA, LLC, __ F.4th __, 2025 WL 1430272 (9th Cir. Jun. 23, 2025). Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Limits FDCA’s Preclusive Sweep at Pleading Stage in Food Mislabeling Case

Food mislabeling class actions are increasingly common.  Last week, the Northern District of California denied a motion for class certification involving allegations of false labeling on ghee, a clarified butter product, because the plaintiff failed to produce evidence  

Defendant Ancient Organics, a ghee manufacturer, made representations on its packaging…

Continue Reading Ghee, I Can’t Believe I Need Evidence: N.D. Cal. Denies Class Certification in Food Labeling Case

An Illinois federal court recently rejected efforts to bring a consumer class action against the parent company of Fiji brand water over allegations that its plastic water bottles contained microplastics.  In doing so, the court added its voice to the growing body of case law about microplastics and offered a window into how to attack similar types of contamination allegations.

In Daly et al. v. The Wonderful Company, LLC, 2025 WL 672913 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2025) plaintiffs alleged that Fiji’s claim that its water is “natural artesian water” are deceptive because the product bottles contain microplastics.  Id. at *1.  Plaintiffs brought claims under five state consumer protection laws and sought to represent a class of consumers allegedly harmed by microplastics in the bottles.  Id.  The company moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (among other things) that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the Fiji Water bottles actually contained microplastics and that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief.  Id. at *2, *6.  Because plaintiffs failed to allege that the water bottles contained microplastics, TWG argued that they could not identify any deceptive statement giving rise to their claims.  Id. at *6.    

On March 3, the court agreed and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint for two reasons.Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Rejects Fiji Water Microplastics Case

In Bates v. Abbott Laboratories, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of a consumer class action challenging the labeling of Ensure shakes and drinks as materially misleading.  2025 WL 65668, at *1–2 (2d Cir. Jan. 10, 2025). Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Class Action Challenging Nutrition Shakes and Drinks As Misleading

Despite a lead plaintiff with unique injuries, the Northern District of Indiana recently certified a class seeking economic damages under Indiana’s consumer protection statute in a case challenging contaminated hand sanitizer manufactured by 4e Brands North America, LLC.  Callantine v. 4e Brands North America, LLC, 2024 WL 4903361 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 27, 2024). 

In June 2020, Defendant 4e voluntarily recalled all of its hand sanitizer lots due to the presence of methanol.  The plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit two months later, alleging that she had suffered both economic and personal injuries, and that she was entitled to statutory damages.  The individual class members’ damages, however, would be “largely limited to statutory damages.” Continue Reading Unique Injuries No Bar to Class Certification Pursuing Economic Damages

Last year, in an important decision for companies that routinely face false advertising claims, the Ninth Circuit held that when “a front label is ambiguous, the ambiguity can be resolved by reference to the back label.”  McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2023).  The Ninth Circuit recently further clarified when reference to the back label is appropriate.  See Whiteside v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 108 F.4th 771 (9th Cir. 2024).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Further Refines Rule on When Back Labels Should Be Considered in False Advertising Claims

California’s prohibition on so-called “hidden” or “junk” fees in consumer transactions is set to take effect on July 1, 2024, with potentially wide-ranging ramifications for how prices are displayed or offered to consumers in the Golden State – and the potential for a significant wave of new class action litigation.

The law—often referred to by its bill number, SB 478—amends California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) to restrict the prices and fees businesses can offer to California consumers.  The basic prohibition is stated in simple terms:  businesses can no longer “advertis[e], display[], or offer[] a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges” to consumers, with limited exceptions such as for sales tax and certain shipping charges.  SB 478 § 3 (to be codified at Cal Civ. Code § 1770(a)(29)(A)).  But this simple language generates numerous complexities.  For example:  Are clearly disclosed fees prohibited if not folded into the main price, or just fees not presented to consumers in close proximity (in both location and time) to the primary price?  When is a fee “mandatory”?  Can fees that are included in a price still be itemized? Continue Reading Outlawing Hide-and-Seek:  California’s Prohibition on “Hidden Fees” in Consumer Pricing Set to Take Effect

Companies in the food, beverage, pharmaceutical, and other industries continue to face litigation regarding their products’ labeling, including as to whether certain representations on labels are deceptive or misleading.  In the Second Circuit and elsewhere, these lawsuits tend to turn on what an objective “reasonable consumer” would understand the representation at issue to mean, and whether that “reasonable consumer” would likely be misled under the circumstances.  In Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir, May 2, 2024), the Second Circuit confirmed how important expert testimony can be to that question, and how efforts to exclude expert testimony can ultimately be the difference between winning and losing. Continue Reading A Closer Look: The Importance of Expert Testimony for “Reasonable Consumer” Claims

A recent New Jersey federal court decision dealt a major blow to class action litigation that seek economic damages associated with the sale of products withdrawn from the market. 

In Gibriano v. Eisai, Inc., et al., 2024 WL 1831546 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2024), the plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased a weight-loss medication that was recently voluntarily withdrawn from the market based on FDA’s concerns about potential cancer risk.  The plaintiff did not claim that she had suffered personal injuries.  Rather, she sought money damages, alleging that she over-paid because the medication “did not meaningfully impact her weight” and because the price she paid was “based on the understanding that it was safe.”  She further alleged that, because of the medication’s potential risks, “no reasonable physician would have prescribed [it] and no reasonable consumer would choose to purchase [it].”  In support of her allegations, the plaintiff attached to her complaint a consumer survey suggesting that knowledge of cancer risk would reduce the amount consumers would pay for a medication. Continue Reading Class-action claims seeking economic damages for purchase of withdrawn medicine defeated on Article III standing grounds.